Alternative Solutions

How will a new bypass be different from the existing US 31 which is also a bypass?
Any new facility would be a limited-access freeway facility. Limited access means that the bypass would resemble interstate-type facilities such as I-65, I-69, and I-465. Interstate/limited-access standards specify that access is only provided at interchanges rather than direct access at adjacent driveways or business entrances. The original bypass (existing US 31) is not a limited access facility and, as a result, there are approximately 140 uncontrolled access points along the 9-mile segment of US 31 between SR 26 and the US 35 northern junction.

Why not just upgrade the existing US 31 route to interstate standards?
As documented in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and Screening Report, upgrading the existing US 31 facility would result in far more relocations when compared to the new alignment alternatives. This alternative would displace almost 100 more residences and businesses than any of the new alignment alternatives and have a disproportionate impact on commercial businesses. The number of displacements, the limited access to remaining businesses, and the loss of retail tax revenue were the major considerations in the evaluation of this alternative. Other factors included: residential relocations, the number of hazardous waste sites impacted, the need for new access roads, the disruption and displacement of grave sites, the disruption to existing business access, and the significantly higher cost of land acquisition.

Were lower cost improvements such as closing some access points or adding a through lane considered?
Yes. Although improvements such as closing some access points may resolve short-term safety concerns, they alone would not provide long-term solutions to current and future congestion concerns. Furthermore, closing some access points may also result in an increase in sporadic traffic movements such as U-turns, thus negatively affecting safety. Widening US 31 with an additional lane was also considered in the preliminary alternatives screening. Although this alternative would add capacity and reduce delays, three intersections would function at substandard levels of service in the future. In addition, the Widen US 31 (Expressway) Alternative would not result in modifications to the characteristics of US 31; therefore, accident rates through this area would likely remain above the statewide average and the long-term goals of the US 31 corridor would not be met.

Why doesn't INDOT regulate or restrict trucks since they seem to be the biggest safety concern?

US 31 is designated as a Statewide Mobility Corridor from Indianapolis to South Bend. The objective of such corridors is to provide safe, free flowing, high-speed connections between metropolitan areas of Indiana and other states. More specifically, Statewide Mobility Corridors accommodate large volumes of through traffic and heavy commercial vehicles.

Aside from this designation, an appropriate series of connected State roads does not exist to facilitate a designated truck route separate from the segment of US 31 through Kokomo and Howard County. In addition, many trucks using US 31 do business along US 31. These local stops are considered when evaluating appropriate interchange locations so that a bypass will more efficiently distribute such truck traffic.

State roads are intended for heavy vehicle (truck) traffic and, therefore, INDOT cannot prohibit or restrict trucks on its highway system. All INDOT roads in the state highway system are intended for trucks unless a height or weight restriction is located along the roadway (i.e., a bridge).

While the perception is that trucks are dangerous, accident data confirm that the safety issues associated with US 31 in Howard County extend beyond truck traffic. Only two of the six fatal accidents that occurred during a three-year period from 1998 to 2000 involved trucks. During the same three-year period, trucks accounted for only 4.8% of the vehicles involved in all accidents despite accounting for approximately 12 percent of vehicles on US 31.

Removing all truck traffic would not solve the current or projected congestion and safety concerns. Traffic analysis reveals that it is the interaction of through and local traffic that creates the safety problem.

Was a "double-decker" freeway considered for the existing US 31 corridor?
Although not formally evaluated in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and Screening Report, an elevated or "double-decker" upgrade of the existing US 31 corridor was considered. Initial assessment of such an alternative revealed potential total costs approximately double those for an at-grade existing corridor upgrade. In addition, concerns over constructability, long-term maintenance, and the impacts associated with loss of access contributed to the elimination of this preliminary alternative.

back to top

Traffic Issues

How much travel time would a new bypass save?
Previous discussions regarding travel time savings resulting from a new bypass require further clarification. There has been a misinterpretation that a new bypass facility would save only 3-4 minutes. It is important to recognize that this is an inaccurate evaluation of alternatives because it compares existing travel time (year 2002) with future travel times (year 2030). In reality, if the existing US 31 was not improved, traffic congestion and, therefore, travel time would increase over time.

A more accurate evaluation of travel times requires that the bypass alternatives (Alternatives E, F, G, I, J, and J Modified) be compared with an equivalent design year "No-Action" alternative. It is projected that a "No-Action" alternative would result in a 25.3 minute travel time through the project area in 2030. Year 2030 travel times for the bypass alternatives are displayed in Table 4-4 (Preliminary Alternative Screening Phase 2 - Environmental Impacts) of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and Screening Report.

As a result, the following is a more accurate comparison of year 2030 travel times for the preliminary alternatives that have been identified as being carried forward for further analysis in the DEIS:

Reduction in travel time is only one performance measure for the project. Other performance measures include reducing accidents and ensuring consistency with state and local long-range transportation plans.

Can the existing US 31 traffic signals be retimed/synchronized to improve traffic congestion?
The existing US 31 traffic conditions were evaluated using current INDOT Greenfield District signal system timings. The 13 US 31 intersections between SR 26 and Morgan Street are interconnected as a traffic signal system. The US 31 intersections with CR 300 North and the US 35 northern junction currently operate independently of this system. The allocation of signal green times and the coordination between signals were updated in June 2001. Furthermore, based on existing signal equipment and traffic patterns, current signal timing plans utilize "last resort" phasing schemes (i.e. lead-lag left turn phasing) in an attempt to improve traffic flow through the US 31 corridor and improve levels of operation.

According to the Indiana Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (INSTIP) and discussions with INDOT Greenfield District Traffic Division, fiber-optic interconnect cable installation and associated signal system timings are programmed for the 15 US 31 signalized intersections between SR 26 and the US 35 northern junction in 2004. It is important to note that the evaluation of signal timings in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and Screening Report incorporated optimized traffic signal/signal system timings. As documented, it was determined that the improved signal and signal system timings alone would not adequately reduce traffic congestion and improve safety.

Why build a bypass for only 13% of the current US 31 traffic?
According to the 1995 MIS, a video license plate survey revealed that US 31 through traffic accounted for approximately 3,900 vehicles per day. Applying this same proportion to existing year traffic volumes, it is estimated that, on average, approximately 13.5% of the daily traffic utilizing US 31 is through traffic.

There are two components that were assessed in evaluating each preliminary bypass alternative's ability to satisfy the project's Purpose and Need:

Ability to Attract Through Traffic It is reasonable to assume that a majority of US 31 through traffic would utilize a bypass facility, regardless of its proximity to the existing US 31 corridor. For this reason, each bypass alternative was assumed to accommodate equivalent levels of through traffic.

Ability to Attract Internal Trips/Local Traffic The varying factor in the traffic modeling was a bypass alternative's ability to accommodate local trips. The ability of a bypass alternative to attract local traffic in part depends upon its distance from the existing US 31 corridor. A larger proportion of local trips (trips internal to the existing US 31 corridor) were accommodated by bypass alternatives located closer to the existing US 31 corridor. For example, the modeling shows that Alternative E carries slightly more traffic than Alternative G, partially because it is located closer to the existing US 31 corridor.

Therefore, a bypass not only attracts through traffic, it also draws a proportion of local trips away from the existing US 31 corridor. This proportion of local trips varies depending on the location of the bypass alignment and the location and frequency of proposed interchanges.

It is important to note that, in addition to accommodating through traffic, the project must also reduce traffic congestion and improve safety to satisfy the project's Purpose and Need.

Wouldn't a bypass fail to improve the congestion and safety concerns on the existing US 31?
Evaluation of bypass alternatives revealed that, in order to be successful, it must attract both through and local traffic away from the existing US 31 corridor. To be successful, a bypass alternative must improve traffic congestion and safety on the existing US 31 corridor by reducing traffic volumes. Although there would still be local traffic on existing US 31, the removal of the mix of local and through traffic would reduce congestion and improve safety on the existing US 31 corridor.

How are interchange locations decided?
Interchange locations are determined in part by State and Federal design standards and by local traffic patterns. In order for a new bypass facility to meet limited-access facility standards (freeway standards), interchanges should not be spaced closer than one mile in urban settings such as the US 31 Kokomo Corridor Project area. A new bypass facility also has to be conducive to the existing State highway system, thus not disrupting traffic on highways such as SR 26, SR 22, and US 35.

A third important factor considered is local traffic patterns and access back to existing US 31 and its retail centers and employers. Consideration is also given to social and environmental factors such as bus routes, emergency service, and natural resources at particular locations.

If there is not an interchange proposed for an existing road, will east/west access across the new bypass be eliminated?
Not in all cases. In many cases, overpasses or underpasses will be designed to maintain traffic on existing roads. However, depending on the volume of traffic, environmental impacts, and cost, some roads may be dead-ended. As the study/project progresses, key east/west roads will be identified with the help of local officials such as school transportation directors, police and fire personnel, and major employers. Citizens are also encouraged to comment on east/west connectivity throughout the project.

back to top

Impacts

How does INDOT compensate for lost property or property value?
Property that is impacted by a State road project is typically acquired at fair market value. Through a well-defined land acquisition process, the State assesses the level of impact to a particular property, performs an appraisal, and, where appropriate, formulates a relocation package for the impacted residents or business. (see FHWA's Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and INDOT's brochures entitled How Land is Purchased for Highways and Relocation Assistance Program, March 2003)

What are the estimated impacts to property tax revenue if a bypass is built?
While it is true that a bypass facility would require some land to be acquired by the State, thus removing it from the tax roles, the overall impact to tax revenue is expected to be minimal. Historically, new road projects through rural areas utilize relatively narrow corridors, thus impacting relatively few total acres and resulting in only a fraction of tax revenue being lost.

The DEIS alternative alignments for the Kokomo bypass (Alternative E, F, G, I, and J) were arrived at through a process of impact analysis. Therefore, the alignments intentionally avoided as many impacts to the tax base (homes, businesses, and farmland) as was possible while maintaining feasible engineering solutions.

The potential loss of tax base for each alternative will be presented in the DEIS.

What was the source of the data used to calculate impacts when evaluating the alternatives?
While initial reports show dated aerial photography as a backdrop for the alternatives, more recent aerial photography has become available and is part of the ongoing study. However, impacts calculated as part of the initial screening process were field verified to insure current conditions were tabulated and considered in the evaluation of preliminary alternatives.

How can the State commit to spending millions of dollars on a new Kokomo bypass during these financially challenging times?
Transportation projects like the proposed US 31 Kokomo Corridor Project are funded by a combination of federal and state government funds. The current formula for such federally-assisted transportation projects is a cost share, 80% federal and 20% state. The state portion comes from revenue generated by the state gasoline tax. This tax is a roadway user tax collected for state roadway maintenance and construction. Revenue from the Indiana gasoline tax can only be used for road and highway transportation projects. As such, these projects are not funded through the state's general budget or by any local taxes.

Will noise impacts be considered?
Yes. Noise studies done as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will determine current and projected noise levels for each alternative and identify any areas that might receive noise-abatement measures such as noise barriers or walls based on federal and state guidelines. For information about INDOT's noise policy, click here .

back to top

Process Overview

What is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is an official document that is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all major projects that are federally funded. The purpose of the EIS is to identify and evaluate the impacts associated with a proposed project and to reveal those impacts to the public and other federal, state, and local agencies.

Key components of an EIS are public and agency involvement in the decision-making process, and the development and impact analysis of project alternatives. All projects must include a "no-build" or "no-action" alternative.

The impacts associated with the project alternatives are presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that is made available for public and agency review and comment for 45 days. A public hearing is held during this period to officially record comments. Following the 45-day comment period, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is prepared that identifies a preferred alternative and addresses all public and agency comments. Based on the FEIS, the FHWA prepares a Record of Decision (ROD) that identifies the selected alternative.

Why is an EIS necessary when the Major Investment Study already examined alternatives and recommended upgrading US 31?
In 1995, a Major Investment Study (MIS) of US 31 in Howard County was completed. The primary purpose of the MIS was to determine the overall feasibility of spending federal funds for the proposed project and to identify and evaluate the most cost-effective alternatives that could address the transportation needs. Essentially, the MIS determines whether the project is worth pursuing and, if so, identifies the initial issues and reasonable range of alternatives to be studied in further detail during the EIS process. An EIS is a much more detailed study required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally funded transportation projects.

Who makes the decision about what to build and where? What factors go into the decision?
The Federal Highway Administration will make the ultimate decision based on a recommendation from the Indiana Department of Transportation. The decision will be based generally on four main factors: environmental impact, traffic analysis, engineering feasibility and public/agency comment.

What is a Purpose and Need Statement?
A Purpose and Need Statement is the foundation of an Environmental Impact Statement. It defines the transportation problem to be solved, provides data to support the need and describes the factors to be considered in evaluating alternatives. A Purpose and Need Statement serves as a guide to developing alternatives and establishing criteria for choosing among alternatives.

back to top

Project Overview

What is the timetable for completing the project?
The US 31 Kokomo Corridor Project will take about three years to complete. For a more detailed timetable, click here.

Once a decision is made on this project, how long will it take to begin construction?
If a build alternative is selected, the next step would be the final design of that alternative, which could take a couple of years. The purchasing of property for right-of-way would follow completion of final design. The right-of-way acquisition process could take another one or two years. Construction would then begin following the acquisition of right-of-way. Construction time varies widely and would depend on the size and complexity of the selected alternative.

Are there other studies of US 31 underway?
Yes. The Indiana Department of Transportation has authorized three independent studies of different portions of US 31 as part of its efforts to provide a Statewide Mobility Corridor between Indianapolis and South Bend.

The other two studies focus on US 31 in Hamilton County and in Marshall and St. Joseph counties near South Bend.

back to top

Public Involvement

How can I voice my opinion about the project?
The Indiana Department of Transportation encourages citizens to make comments, voice concerns and ask questions about the project. Interested citizens also are welcome to communicate with the project team throughout the project through several methods.

• Comment online
• Call Toll Free: (317) 234-4938
• Fax: (317) 232-1499
• Write:
  US 31 Kokomo Corridor Project
  Attention: Aimee Kindred
  100 N. Senate Avenue, IGCN, Room N955
  Indianapolis, IN 46204
  

How can I stay informed about the project?
This Web site is a reliable, updated source of information about the project. In addition, you can sign up to receive the project newsletters and e-mail notification of meetings by clicking here.

What is the Community Advisory Committee? How will its members be selected?
The project team will select a diverse group of local citizens to outline community concerns and provide feedback on possible alternatives. The group includes representatives of major interest groups, such as business, farming and the environment.

How can I comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)?
Unlike the DEIS and SDEIS, the FEIS is not followed by an official comment period. This is because the document is the final publication of the Environmental Impact Statement and addresses previously recorded comments from each of the public comment periods during the process. However, public comment will continue to be a vital part of the next step of the project – the design phase – and interested parties are encouraged to continue using the comment mechanisms listed above and to visit this website often for updates.

back to top